Sigma 50mm f1.4

cuthbert

cuthbert

Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew Me Dibble and Grubb
Messages
1,444
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
i currently have the canon 50mm f1.8 and i'm in the market for an upgrade.

optically, the sigma seems gorgeous... much better than the canon 50 1.4 which doesn't seem all that much of an upgrade from the nifty. i want a siggmy 50 1.4. but there is a nagging doubt in my head.

on flickr the images are all wonderful and creamy smooth.

does anybody have this lens? could you post any samples?

what's it like in real use? the reviews on amazon seem to suggest there are some dodgy af issues?

any info highly appreciated.

do i sell my canon 100mm f2.8 macro (non L) in pristine condition to fund it? i already have a 135 f2, so the range is sort of covered, but i loose macro.
 
Last edited:
i recently used mine for some prize giving shots in a very gloomy indoor arena and am more than happy with it.

im not sure ive got anything online, give me a mo and i'll have a look though.
 
thanks Neil.

what's it like from f1.4 to say f2.8 in terms of focusing and bokeh?
 
Thanks Neil, I think you've made up my mind. I've put my other lenses up for sale. Can't wait to order it!

If anybody else does have any shots taken with this lens, please do add them! :)
 
cuthbert said:
Thanks Neil, I think you've made up my mind. I've put my other lenses up for sale. Can't wait to order it!

If anybody else does have any shots taken with this lens, please do add them! :)
Click to expand...

Well, these were all taken using the Nikon-fit version (on Nikon bodies, obviously), but it should give you an idea of what the lens can do.

Link ...


I have one myself, but it's too big to carry around 'just in case', so mine lives on my F100 film camera :|.
 
neil_g said:
really? its only about the same size as an average coffee mug?
Click to expand...

What I meant was, when I'm out with a gripped D700, the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, the thought of trying to cram another 1/2kg of bulky glass into my camera bag is not an appealing one :D. I have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D too, which is half the size and about one third of the weight, so that usually goes along instead, just in case I absolutely need 50mm or an aperture of less than f/2.8 :|.

To be honest, I don't like the Sigma at f/1.4 or f/1.8, due to the fairly heavy colour fringing. When I do use it, it's either with b&w film, or on digital (where I tend to use it f/2.2 or smaller).

IMO, it's a lens for prime buffs, 50mm devotees, or people with no worries about how much they spend on additional lenses. I guess that puts me in the last category :thinking:.
 
neil_g said:
i guess its subjective but i lug a 120-300, 70-200 and the 50 around.. along with 2 bodies and flashes. so the extra 505g isnt really felt :D
Click to expand...

(y) That's dedication for you!

I suppose it's OK if there's at least a 10% chance that you are actually going to use the 50mm. In the 18 months that I've had mine, I used it outdoors just twice on digital cameras and a couple of times with a 35mm camera. Must have carried it over 100 miles by now, I reckon :LOL:.

Anyway, I'm a bit off-topic here, as the OP asked about image quality and bokeh - two things which this lens excels at :naughty:!
 
woof woof, IMO those shots are soft as buggery. have you sharpened them?
 
err.... f1.4 and ISO 3200 on a 20D shooting kitten and you want sharp??? :)

No, they aren't sharpened. I thought they might be useful for bokeh.
 
Thanks everyone. Still interested in seeing what you guys are doing with this lens, specifically when paired with a full frame body.

with thanks to mr MBNA, i've pulled the trigger and got one coming. hopefully i'll have my grubby mitts on it for the weekend.
 
Mark, I've just got one for the 5D MK II and I'm very happy with it - it's just finding the time to go out there a shoot.
 
cuthbert said:
Thanks everyone. Still interested in seeing what you guys are doing with this lens, specifically when paired with a full frame body.

with thanks to mr MBNA, i've pulled the trigger and got one coming. hopefully i'll have my grubby mitts on it for the weekend.
Click to expand...

I have the Canon 1.4, its a fab lens but is very hard to use at F1.8 and below. The depth of field is less than 5mm at about 5 foot. The usual comments about it being soft are generally not correct, its usually a focus problem due to the depth of field, or in this case a lack of it.

In low light it is unbeatable in this price range and focal length, wide open it lets in loads of light and allows fast shutter speeds which would otherwise be impossible. Its place is indoor low light moving subjects, such as church weddings, kids parties, kids portraits etc.

This is one of my favs:- (40d and 50mm F1.4)

Anna.jpg


LoisBW6.jpg
 
I love this lens. It was slightly out so fixed it with micoadjust.

On full frame when taking pics the dof is so shallow it takes a while to get use to it. The outer points can be a little tricky to focus well on distance subject.

It's my second favourite prime lens after my Canon 135L, but that you can't even make it screw up if you tried :)
 
I feel a bit guilty about posting a link to soft cat pictures (20D isn't great at ISO 3200) and I don't want people thinking the lens isn't sharp so here's a f1.4 ISO 100 I've just taken. Full shot and 100%...

IMG_0662-01c.jpg


IMG_0662-01c1.jpg
 
thanks woof woof, just what i wanted to see!

thanks to Naboo32 - i've been going through the nikon forum - those guys have done some great things with the lens. well worth signing up for if you're not a member. some of the pictures are just gorgeous. the bokeh gives my 135l a run for it's money i reckon.
 
no post processing done on these woof woof?

If not you've just twitched my wallet into coughing up for one of these.
 
"thanks woof woof, just what i wanted to see!" :)

PS. adsayer - No, nothing done to these shots at all. They're RAW, saved to JPEG using Rawshooter Essentials, no sliders moved even a smidgen and sharpening set to zero.
 
Last edited:
I was led to believe the lens was pretty horrendous wide open. cool stuff. more sample pics would be appreciated though :)
 
adsayer said:
I was led to believe the lens was pretty horrendous wide open. cool stuff. more sample pics would be appreciated though :)
Click to expand...

Who told you that?!

All wide open



DSC_2101-web.jpg


DSC_2220-web.jpg


DSC_2245-web.jpg


DSC_2518-web.jpg


DSC_2712-web.jpg


100% crop of above

sigma50-af.jpg


​

Anyone who can't get sharp shots from the best 50mm you can buy is probably incompetant :D
 
If you do get a "dog of a copy" it'll be under warranty so just take it back and swap it or send it away to be fixed.
 
Then you are the one who's missing out on a great lens. :thinking:

I know that I'm getting a reputation as a defender of all things Sigma but I can only speak from experience. I've never had an optical issue with any lens I've ever bought, they're all sharp, even the Sigma's.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
because nothing can ever be faulty on arrival..
Click to expand...

Sadly it's entirely typical of my experience with Sigma lenses:

30/1.4 - left side all over the place
105 Macro - far worse than the comparable Tamron
50/1.4 - see above.
70-200/2.8 - soft until f4. And I mean soft.

woof woof said:
Then you are the one who's missing out on a great lens. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Perhaps. On the other hand I opted for, and am delighted with, the Nikkor 50/1.4G instead. It's not missed a beat in 18 months of professional use.

So I rarely feel like I'm missing out.

Remember chaps - I'm not attacking you personally. Simply giving my experience of this lens (and one which is clouded by my experience with Sigma). 4 lenses is giving them enough chances - I need kit I can trust week in, week out.
 
woof woof said:
Then you are the one who's missing out on a great lens. :thinking:
Click to expand...

its only great if it works, not much use otherwise, and Sigmas *great* quality control means that a copy sat in your bag cause its a dog isn't great at all.
 
Why would a faulty lens be sat in your bag? Send it back.
 
woof woof said:
Why would a faulty lens be sat in your bag? Send it back.
Click to expand...

I did - two different copies till I gave up on them, and bought the Nikkon instead.

I know you've never had an issue with a Sigma lens, but they are the only lenses I've ever had problems with
 
boyfalldown said:
I did - two different copies till I gave up on them, and bought the Nikkon instead.

I know you've never had an issue with a Sigma lens, but they are the only lenses I've ever had problems with
Click to expand...

+1

Aside from a Nikkor 14-24 that arrived with a dead USM.
 
Had Nikon 50mm 1.4G. Very nice but got stolen in burglary.

Decided to buy Sigma 50mm as I'd read good things about it.

Realised the Sigma 50mm was bloody awful and returned it within 24 hours.

Bought another Nikon 50mm 1.4G.

Happy now :)
 
I have a couple of Sigs - the 70-200 2.8 and the 50mm 1.4 and both fine out of the box. In fact the 50mm is what I use for studio work on a full frame most of the time - a bit wide for close up stuff but it's great to work with.

And I would say Woofwoof - your samples are good but to shoot RAW and not sharpen you are not showing the capabilities of the lens. Remember your camera will actually loose some of the potential sharpness and you need to get it back.
 
Yes, I can see your argument and I agree that posting unprocessed shots may be the wrong approach, I had thought that I was doing the right thing but you may be right...

Obviously I do process my shots.

Personally I'd rather read someones opinion than look at a shot as what can we really tell from the little images posted here anyway?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top